| 1. |
- Coustenis, A., et al.
(författare)
-
TandEM : Titan and Enceladus mission
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Experimental astronomy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0922-6435 .- 1572-9508. ; 23:3, s. 893-946
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- TandEM was proposed as an L-class (large) mission in response to ESA's Cosmic Vision 2015-2025 Call, and accepted for further studies, with the goal of exploring Titan and Enceladus. The mission concept is to perform in situ investigations of two worlds tied together by location and properties, whose remarkable natures have been partly revealed by the ongoing Cassini-Huygens mission. These bodies still hold mysteries requiring a complete exploration using a variety of vehicles and instruments. TandEM is an ambitious mission because its targets are two of the most exciting and challenging bodies in the Solar System. It is designed to build on but exceed the scientific and technological accomplishments of the Cassini-Huygens mission, exploring Titan and Enceladus in ways that are not currently possible (full close-up and in situ coverage over long periods of time). In the current mission architecture, TandEM proposes to deliver two medium-sized spacecraft to the Saturnian system. One spacecraft would be an orbiter with a large host of instruments which would perform several Enceladus flybys and deliver penetrators to its surface before going into a dedicated orbit around Titan alone, while the other spacecraft would carry the Titan in situ investigation components, i.e. a hot-air balloon (MontgolfiSre) and possibly several landing probes to be delivered through the atmosphere.
|
|
| 2. |
- Baloukidis, D., et al.
(författare)
-
A Comparative Assessment of the Distribution of Joule Heating in Altitude as Estimated in TIE-GCM and EISCAT Over One Solar Cycle
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics. - : American Geophysical Union (AGU). - 2169-9380 .- 2169-9402. ; 128:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- During geomagnetically active times, Joule (or frictional) heating in the Lower Thermosphere-Ionosphere is a significant source of thermal energy, greatly affecting density, temperature, composition and circulation. At the same time, Joule heating and the associated Pedersen conductivity are amongst the least known parameters in the upper atmosphere in terms of their quantification and spatial distribution, and their parameterization by geomagnetic parameters shows large discrepancies between estimation methodologies, primarily due to a lack of comprehensive measurements in the region where they maximize. In this work we perform a long-term statistical comparison of Joule heating as calculated by the NCAR Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIE-GCM) and as obtained through radar measurements by the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT). Statistical estimates of Joule heating and Pedersen conductivity are obtained from a simulation run over the 11 year period spanning from 2009 until 2019 and from radar measurements over the same period, during times of radar measurements. The results are statistically compared in different Magnetic Local Time sectors and Kp level ranges in terms of median values and percentiles of altitude profiles. It is found that Joule heating and Pedersen conductivity are higher on average in TIE-GCM than in EISCAT for low Kp and are lower than EISCAT for high Kp. It is also found that neutral winds cannot account for the discrepancies between TIE-GCM and EISCAT. Comparisons point toward the need for a Kp-dependent parameterization of Joule heating in TIE-GCM to account for the contribution of small scale effects. During times of high solar activity, Joule (or frictional) heating in the Lower Thermosphere-Ionosphere is a significant source of thermal energy, greatly affecting density, temperature, composition and circulation. Joule heating is largely unknown, due to a lack of measurements in the altitude ranges where it maximizes. In this work we compare Joule heating estimates from the NCAR Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIE-GCM) and as obtained through radar measurements by the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT), from a simulation run over the 11 year period spanning from 2009 until 2019 and from radar measurements over the same period. The results are compared in different Magnetic Local Time sectors and Kp level ranges in terms of median values and percentiles of altitude profiles. It is found that Joule heating and Pedersen conductivity are higher on average in TIE-GCM than in EISCAT for low activity levels and are lower than EISCAT for high activity levels. It is also found that neutral winds cannot account for the discrepancies between TIE-GCM and EISCAT. Comparisons point toward the need for a new parameterization of Joule heating in TIE-GCM to account for the contribution of small scale effects. Joule heating and Pedersen conductivity are calculated in Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIE-GCM) and European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT) during solar cycle 24, as a function of Kp, Magnetic Local Time and altitudeJoule heating and Pedersen conductivity in TIE-GCM are under-estimated for high Kp compared to EISCAT measurementsComparisons point toward the need for parameterization of small scale effects in TIE-GCM
|
|
| 3. |
- Duffy, J. M. N., et al.
(författare)
-
Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Human Reproduction. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0268-1161 .- 1460-2350. ; 35:12, s. 2725-2734
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.
|
|
| 4. |
- Duffy, J. M. N., et al.
(författare)
-
Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Human Reproduction. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0268-1161 .- 1460-2350. ; 35:12, s. 2735-2745
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set.
|
|
| 5. |
- Duffy, J. M. N., et al.
(författare)
-
Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Human Reproduction. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0268-1161 .- 1460-2350. ; 35:12, s. 2715-2724
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from I I countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.
|
|
